Essays About Death Penalty In The Philippines
The Philippine Senate has once again considered the reestablishment of the Republic Act No. 7659, an act to impose the death penalty on certain heinous crimes, a result of an increasing number of crimes in the country. However, is death penalty practical in the Philippines? Death penalty is not practical in the Philippines because it is not a proven deterrence to crimes, the state has a faulty judicial system, and the culture and religion of majority of the Filipino people opposes to it.
Death penalty is not practical in the Philippines because it is not a proven deterrence to crimes. A 2009 survey of criminologists revealed that over 88% believed that death penalty was not a deterrent to murder. In fact, murder rates in states with no death penalty is consistently lower than states with the death penalty. This alone is enough to make death penalty unpractical. In addition, in a 2004 survey by the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) of 1,121 death row inmates in the Philippines, it was found that majority of the inmates knew of the death penalty before they committed their offenses. Clearly, death penalty has little deterrence to none.
Death penalty is not practical in the Philippines because the state has a faulty judicial system. For death penalty to be practical and efficient, a fair criminal justice system is essential (FLAG, 2004). However, it is not the case in the Philippines. The criminal justice system is full of defects such as faulty police work, coerced confessions, prosecutorial misconduct, inept defense counsel, mistaken or perjured testimony and trial court decisions based on seemingly inconclusive evidence (PCIJ, 2006). In addition, the Supreme Court, in a 2004 decision, made 72% judicial errors. How can death penalty be a practical when the judiciary of the country is inefficient and full of incompetence?
Death penalty is not practical in the Philippines because the culture and religion of majority of the Filipino people opposes to it. They affect the government’s use of death penalty. The Philippines is a predominantly Catholic country. Many citizens including the Philippine president, himself, is against the reestablishment of death penalty and the Church continuously fights against it. The death penalty offends the dignity of a human person and of human rights. According to article II, section11 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, “The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights”. Clearly, death penalty is not practical as it is against the beliefs of majority of the people in the Philippines.
The Philippines is not ready for the reestablishment of the death penalty. It must improve its judicial system. However, it still will not solve the growing number of crimes. Killing does not justify killing. It is immoral and against the religion and culture of the Filipino people. To end, death penalty is impractical and should not be reestablished in the country.
Death Penalty Position Paper
915 Words4 Pages
“An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” is how the saying goes. Coined by the infamous Hammurabi’s Code around 1700 BC, this ancient expression has become the basis of a great political debate over the past several decades – the death penalty. While the conflict can be whittled down to a matter of morals, a more pragmatic approach shows defendable points that are far more evidence backed. Supporters of the death penalty advocate that it deters crime, provides closure, and is a just punishment for those who choose to take a human life. Those against the death penalty argue that execution is a betrayal of basic human rights, an ineffective crime deterrent, an economically wasteful option, and an outdated method. The debate has experienced…show more content…
Additionally, because the death penalty is such an ultimate decision, the number of court trials required to follow through with the sentence builds up significant costs as well. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, the elimination of the death penalty would be beneficial due to the economic ease it would bring. The death penalty is inefficient means of punishment in both process and methodology. Due process by which criminals are tried is a lengthy and elaborate process. Convicts can make repeated court appeals to delay or dismiss their sentence. American’s desire a more brief and efficient method of trials, but “to give the… public a truly swift and efficient system…significant effort to keep the process error free would… have to be abandoned” (Zimring). The difficulty of this process and the inefficient use of time make the death penalty too drawn out to be a practical option. In the same way, the death penalty is said to deter crime, but “many criminologists…who favored capital punishment have admitted that they have been unable to produce ‘convincing studies’ that track the relationship between the death penalty and the crime rate” (Zimring). A less final act of punishment would allow more room for change of plan and less need for strictly regimented processing in addition to having more positive results. The death penalty is riddled through with inconsistencies in both how frequently it is administered and which racial